Neurologist fired over Instagram meme at UMiami Miller SOM

[polymerization]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Neurologist fired from UM after sharing post about Charlie Kirk’s murder - The Miami Hurricane

Dr. Michelle Bravo, a former neurologist at UM's Miller School of Medicine, was fired on Saturday, Sept. 13, after the University was made aware of a post she shared on X about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The post read, “What was done to Charlie Kirk has been done to countless Palestinian...

themiamihurricane.com

A neurologist out of UMiami is fired because she reposted a viral meme response to the Charlie Kirk assassination to her Instagram account.

It is notable to me that the institution took action based on an account that was deidentified (was not using her real name) and private. Someone who knew her would have had to screenshot it and share. Alternatively, anyone can post photos of you on a new Instagram account and claim you said something or other.

With the pace of social media today, the idea that two finger taps can cause you to lose your job should be horrifying to everyone.

 

[MrM45]

"Do no harm" is one of the fundamental responsibilities of being a physician. It doesn't matter if it was private, but a doctor who cheers the murder of anyone is a liability and should be a concern.

 

[LizzyM]

I didn't see it as cheering anyone's murder but tying it to what has happened in Gaza was a third rail in Miami.

 

[polymerization]

I didn't see it as cheering anyone's murder but tying it to what has happened in Gaza was a third rail in Miami.

Correct. It wasn't even so much a commentary on the assassination as it was an open question about whether the public's fixation on one atrocity (at the expense of all others) would seem to implicitly reflect values in contradiction to what is actually being said.

For example, the Evergreen school shooting happening in Colorado was happening at exactly the same time and has not received a fraction of the media coverage. Objectively, the slaughtering of innocent children who do not have political beliefs of their own is an unspeakable cruelty that should receive more attention by Kirk devoteés own logic.

It dovetails with last week's thread. If we are all supposed to hold hands as physicians (and physicians-in-training) in spite of what is being said, how come the Hispanic girl loses her job for mindlessly flicking a button? Tarred and feathered on antisemitic watchdog accounts? There are articles from the University about this, instead of moving in silence as per usual?

I don't know...last week we were talking about someone vocalizing controversial beliefs in the professional space and we were preaching tolerance...this week it would appear we have evidence that having the wrong beliefs in private can have severe material consequences far beyond the slap on the wrist I was arguing for on that thread.

 

[deleted1224323]

All that training, all that hard work, ruined over an impulsive decision

Better to be apolitical and not share memes like that to preserve employment these days imo

 

[FuturePediatricNeurosurge]

"Do no harm" is one of the fundamental responsibilities of being a physician. It doesn't matter if it was private, but a doctor who cheers the murder of anyone is a liability and should be a concern.

Good point. Similar to if a doctor said obese patients deserve to have heart attacks, drug addicts deserve to overdose, homosexuals deserve to contract HIV, etc.

The “the chickens have come home to roost” is what took her post too far, but the criticism over the selective outrage is fair.

Also, the post's claim that Kirk would say: ‘I love this, I want more of this. The people who did this are great and I love them and they should keep doing it forever.’ is false.

Skip to 31:15 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ9VOlaBBeo -- it's clear Kirk knew that Israel was overstepping in it's killing of Palestinians.

Edit: Disclaimer about my profile pic-- I do not agree with Kirk on everything, at some points in my life I was repulsed by him, but my friends and I at college were brought together by watching his debates and he encouraged us to be more open and active in political discussions. Despite our disagreements I am saddened by his death as he is one of the key drivers of Gen Z's political engagement. His death is felt by everyone whose campuses he visited and everyone who enjoyed watching his debates on youtube.

 

[LelouchLamperouge]

Good point. Similar to if a doctor said obese patients deserve to have heart attacks, drug addicts deserve to overdose, homosexuals deserve to contract HIV, etc.

The “the chickens have come home to roost” is what took her post too far, but the criticism over the selective outrage is fair.

Also, the post's claim that Kirk would say: ‘I love this, I want more of this. The people who did this are great and I love them and they should keep doing it forever.’ is false.

Skip to 31:15 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ9VOlaBBeo -- it's clear Kirk knew that Israel was overstepping in it's killing of Palestinians.

Edit: Disclaimer about my profile pic-- I do not agree with Kirk on everything, at some points in my life I was repulsed by him, but my friends and I at college were brought together by watching his debates and he encouraged us to be more open and active in political discussions. Despite our disagreements I am saddened by his death as he is one of the key drivers of Gen Z's political engagement. His death is felt by everyone whose campuses he visited and everyone who enjoyed watching his debates on youtube.

Kirk spent most of his career derailing minorities and spewing tons of hateful rhetoric. His views and ideologies are a part of the reason why we are so divided as a nation.

Also, he has played such a huge role is undermining public trust in physicians and healthcare. However, I agree—he didn’t deserve to die and the UMiami professor didn’t deserve to lose her job.

Correct. It wasn't even so much a commentary on the assassination as it was an open question about whether the public's fixation on one atrocity (at the expense of all others) would seem to implicitly reflect values in contradiction to what is actually being said.

For example, the Evergreen school shooting happening in Colorado was happening at exactly the same time and has not received a fraction of the media coverage. Objectively, the slaughtering of innocent children who do not have political beliefs of their own is an unspeakable cruelty that should receive more attention by Kirk devoteés own logic.

I agree with this. Empathy only comes alive when people see horrific things can happen to people they identify with. It sucks, and I think it’s not a bad thing to raise the question that the UMiami professor is essentially raising in her post—How can we feel all this pain for one man, but not for the countless children who have been killed in Gaza?

 

[FuturePediatricNeurosurge]

His views and ideologies are a part of the reason why we are so divided as a nation.

Encouraging open, peaceful, respectful public debate and striving to compromise and come to common ground is far less divisive than the "holier than thou" refusal-to-engage and demonization techniques used by many other politicians/commentators.

My friends and I sat around as a group of dems/repubs watching his debates and debating amongst ourselves, coming to compromises with one another. His videos did not divide us, but inspired us to consider each other's viewpoints.

We watched hundreds of hours of his debates -- I remember him as a very respectful, not hateful, debater. For example, a trans woman with colored hair came up to the mic once and he immediately started out by ordering the crowd to be respectful and refrain from heckling the woman. This isn't the behavior of a hateful man.

With regard to some of his comments -- anyone who speaks on camera for thousands of hours is bound to make some mistakes that cause division or are seen as racist, even if the speaker isn't actually. For example...

- Biden: “Poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids.” ... “[Obama's the] first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”
- Hillary Clinton: "[Black youth] are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy.”
- Kamala Harris: "Oh, you [Christians] are at the wrong rally. No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.”

 

[deleted1224323]

I’m strongly of the opinion one should keep their political beliefs and ideologies to themselves. It’s a dog eat dog world and that woman definitely had some haters go out of their way to ruin her life. Too many snakes in the grass

I don’t condone her impulsivity. But yes, losing her job over a repost was excessive and reflects questionably on the Miller School of Medicine imo

And I say this as a UM undergrad alum too

 

[doctorendgame]

Politics is a **** show all around. If you asked me 10 years ago, I'd be a hardcore liberal. But now, I'm a left-leaning moderate who hates liberals more than conservatives because liberals have gotten out of hand in recent years to the point they have the lower approval rating. Harris was projected to win the popular vote, but the fact she lost even that to that lunatic should tell you how unlikable liberals are today. But even if you point out the facts to try to get them to tone down on their stances to win back support, they won't listen and will just assume you're on the opposite side. I just see the merits of both sides now, but I still believe society has a long ways to go.

Moral of the story, just keep your political views private. It's much better for your mental health and evidently, career. You're one person and you won't have any impact on an entire party, so just sit back and enjoy the ****show and don't voice any opinions or repost anything political.

For the record, I hate conservatives too because they're so scientifically illiterate that any doctor or scientist should be embarrassed to identify as one. But I hate liberals more because they're so deluded into thinking they're the champions of social justice that anyone who voices any dissent is some kind of -phobic.

 

[doctorendgame]

Kirk spent most of his career derailing minorities and spewing tons of hateful rhetoric. His views and ideologies are a part of the reason why we are so divided as a nation.

Also, he has played such a huge role is undermining public trust in physicians and healthcare. However, I agree—he didn’t deserve to die and the UMiami professor didn’t deserve to lose her job.

From what I can tell, he promoted healthy disagreements and some of his rhetoric is backed by statistics. The thing about colleges is they are liberal strongholds and conservatives are often penalized for speaking about their views. Charlie Kirk wanted to give conservatives a voice where they'd feel safe exercising their right to free speech because that right has only belonged to liberals in colleges. The first half of this video sums it up.

I know he criticized affirmative action, which has its merits. If you look at the AAMC matriculant data, it supports his point, particularly how if you look a the average MCAT score of matriculants and the SD, it translates to 15% of Black matriculants and 22% of Hispanics matriculating with a sub-500 MCAT score, compared to .98% for Asians and 2.5% of Whites that matriculate with a sub-500 score, which looks to me like those colleges were trying to meet diversity quotas. If you matriculate with a sub-500 score, your foundation is weak and you're at a higher risk of failing out.

I don't agree with him on everything, but I do agree with him on this but what happens if someone calls out this statistic? They get called racist (which is why I hate liberals more than conservatives despite being a hardcore liberal 10 years ago). Him calling the Civil Rights Act a mistake is something I will never get behind, but him being vocal about his conservative views to promote healthy discussions and disagreements is something I can get behind. The reality is we all have super unpopular opinions that we keep our mouths shut about. I have them, so let's not pretend we're morally superior to him.

 

[polymerization]

I didn't write this post to get into a conversation about whether or not Charlie Kirk deserved to be assassinated. He did not. I condemn all violence regardless of whether it is state-sponsored or not, or whether it is politically motivated or not.

I wrote the post within the boundaries of our community to discuss professional norms in flux. Assuming we are successful in entering the profession, these norms will follow us throughout our careers.

We get to decide to a considerable degree what our lives will look like in 10 or 15 years through our discourse and actions today. I disagree completely that medicine can ever be value-neutral and that we should all essentially "shut up and do our jobs." Medicine exists in a liminal space that intersects institutions, law and justice, and the existential necessity to sustain life—preferably in the most utilitarian way possible. We are given the privilege to speak on not only how to live a healthy life, but what it means to live well.

While we're at work, I think there is a basis of civility and respect that is required to maintain a therapeutic relationship with a patient and positive work relationships with our colleagues. Outside of work, physicians are humans, first and foremost—with the right to voice their own concerns in the exact same way an accountant, or a janitor, or a construction worker might.

It tickles me that so much of the discourse around Kirk's death ruminates on the right to free speech, but something like this happens right under our noses and the response is to say she deserved it for having the gall, the nerve, the audacity to... repost a meme? It bears repeating: this was not a public lecture in front of 3,000 people. It was a repost on an account that was deidentified and private.

Let me put it to you this way. Of the 700 people who have seen this thread, I can pretty much personally guarantee we would all be treated like Dr. Bravo in a similar situation. In politics and government, it's rules for thee, not for me. The powerful are protected...the people who don't go on TV or a podcast watched by millions on a daily basis are scapegoated.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

San Diego Navy doctor fired after right-wing activists find pronouns on social media

Cmdr. Janelle Marra, a 21-year Navy physician, was the medical director of Expeditionary Medical Facility 150 Bravo.

www.kpbs.org

I just wanted to come back to this to share this article. It’s no longer about just “political ideology” as many in here have stated. Only one set of views is losing jobs and somehow it isn’t the side that called for the “involuntary lethal injection” of unhoused people.

 

[LelouchLamperouge]

I know he criticized affirmative action, which has its merits. If you look at the AAMC matriculant data, it supports his point, particularly how if you look a the average MCAT score of matriculants and the SD, it translates to 15% of Black matriculants and 22% of Hispanics matriculating with a sub-500 MCAT score, compared to .98% for Asians and 2.5% of Whites that matriculate with a sub-500 score, which looks to me like those colleges were trying to meet diversity quotas. If you matriculate with a sub-500 score, your foundation is weak and you're at a higher risk of failing out.

Black and Hispanic physicians make up about 5% of all physicians (each). It's not about stats or who scored higher than who--it's about the patients. And patient outcomes are better with physicians who look like them and grew up with similar experiences to them. The workforce is already not representative of the patient population, and medical schools are doing a good job of trying to offset that difference. I get you're trying to say CK was only trying to give a voice to those with conservative values, but what about the criticism about "affirmative action" in medicine has its merits?

(For context, I'm ORM.)

 

[polymerization]

San Diego Navy doctor fired after right-wing activists find pronouns on social media

Cmdr. Janelle Marra, a 21-year Navy physician, was the medical director of Expeditionary Medical Facility 150 Bravo.

www.kpbs.org

I just wanted to come back to this to share this article. It’s no longer about just “political ideology” as many in here have stated. Only one set of views is losing jobs and somehow it isn’t the side that called for the “involuntary lethal injection” of unhoused people.

This could be even more horrifying, considering LinkedIn requires pronouns (at least, my profile has mine, as a cis-presenting person for whom that kind of identification is self-evident, and so I would have left them out given the option).

It's application season. A soft requirement of this process is demonstrating a willingness to advocate for underserved populations. Meeting this requirement (or, God forbid, internalizing the value that marginalized groups are worthy of protection) is evidently grounds for losing your job.

Obviously the downstream effect is not just that these groups will not be advocated for and their health will suffer (although I think that should be the primary concern)... but if we're looking to bridge political divides and ask why we should all care: this fundamentally undermines our autonomy as physicians.

For those that balk at all of this "academic" talk and feel strongly that we're armchair philosophizing from the ivory tower, Pete Hegseth went to Princeton and Harvard. The perennial argument on the value of prestige also makes sense to talk about in this context. For Hegseth, it certainly isn't a matter of not fully understanding the issues or the implications of his actions as Secretary of War. Yikes.

All of the social value and power that was marketed to us as freshmen in college at pre-med advising lectures is showing itself to be shockingly nominal and fragile.

 

[doctorendgame]

San Diego Navy doctor fired after right-wing activists find pronouns on social media

Cmdr. Janelle Marra, a 21-year Navy physician, was the medical director of Expeditionary Medical Facility 150 Bravo.

www.kpbs.org

I just wanted to come back to this to share this article. It’s no longer about just “political ideology” as many in here have stated. Only one set of views is losing jobs and somehow it isn’t the side that called for the “involuntary lethal injection” of unhoused people.

Conservatives were whining about cancel culture and now they're the ones cancelling people. The irony is delicious.

 

[doctorendgame]

Black and Hispanic physicians make up about 5% of all physicians (each). It's not about stats or who scored higher than who--it's about the patients. And patient outcomes are better with physicians who look like them and grew up with similar experiences to them. The workforce is already not representative of the patient population, and medical schools are doing a good job of trying to offset that difference. I get you're trying to say CK was only trying to give a voice to those with conservative values, but what about the criticism about "affirmative action" in medicine has its merits?

(For context, I'm ORM.)

That's just it. Outside of medical school admissions, that merit dies down significantly. May I present exhibit A.

 

[polymerization]

That's just it. Outside of medical school admissions, that merit dies down significantly. May I present exhibit A.

Can you be more specific about the claim you're making and how this source is credible evidence in support of that claim?

 

[doctorendgame]

Can you be more specific about the claim you're making and how this source is credible evidence in support of that claim?

Affirmative action has much room for improvement because otherwise, you get hires like these. In fact, companies with DEI programs were explicitly told to stop hiring white men, which ironically makes affirmative action just as racist rather than eliminating it, but that's not a conversation liberals are ready to have; they are so committed to "fighting" racism that they can't fathom the idea that a program they support ends up causing discrimination, speaking from personal experience.

Thanks for asking for clarification rather than outright assuming. Politics is filled with idiots like that.

 

[polymerization]

Affirmative action has much room for improvement because otherwise, you get hires like these. In fact, companies with DEI programs were explicitly told to stop hiring white men, which ironically makes affirmative action just as racist rather than eliminating it.

Thanks for asking for clarification rather than outright assuming. Politics is filled with idiots like that.

Although that is quite a heavy-handed, short-sighted generalization, I'll say that the framing is problematic just on a factual, historical basis.

The premise you're assuming is that the job market was a meritocracy and perfectly fair before, and that affirmative action policies were a way to discriminate exclusively against white males, who were most prominently affected by these changes in policy.

The truth is the inverse: due to -isms of various flavors, entire categories of people were overtly excluded from entire industries... it was an era when white male doctors recruited other white males on the basis of shared demographics—far, far from being the meritocracy you are implying. If anything, the meritocracy was created as the movements for equality made this kind of exclusion less socially tolerable and so it needed to become more covert to be effective at resisting minorities of all stripes from entering the profession.

The entire conception of merit is defined to represent the things the reference group already has, and is used to justify one's station once the already rigged system exerts its intended effect. At the same time, it suppresses the reality of historical oppression and exclusion that makes even the aspiration of meeting meritocratic ideals impossible given that the same behaviors are interpreted differently based on identity (aka prejudice/implicit bias). That's why marginalized folks going through this process have this conception of having to be "twice as good [as the reference group]" to be noticed...and why the holistic approach we have now feels like a pittance relative to the redistribution of opportunity that is truly needed.

Look, at the end of the day, I can show you many people who break the law and abuse their power. We are watching it happen all the time, and given that the marginalized are being fired from any role of consequence, you only really have the reference group to blame. Ignoring the two clear cases of such at the highest rungs of society linked via news articles here...to interrogate the crumbs we offer the most vulnerable through an amateur documentary from a channel with 6,000 followers on YouTube is just intellectually lazy. Ditto for articles from resumebuilder.com.

 

[karaya]

For the record, I hate conservatives too because they're so scientifically illiterate that any doctor or scientist should be embarrassed to identify as one. But I hate liberals more because they're so deluded into thinking they're the champions of social justice that anyone who voices any dissent is some kind of -phobic.

What a strange perspective to espouse on a medical forum. Last I checked, it was not leftists who were removing vaccine mandates or cutting access to abortion and Medicaid. When you equate the left and right, you ignore the pure fact that one of them is actively eroding this profession, its reputation, and the ability to care for our patients. Is this not your first priority as a physician?

I've seen parents in clinic who are "opting out" of vaccines for their kid. Why don't we opt out of antibiotics as well, and treat meningitis with herbal remedies? It's just so stupid. If you choose to be apolitical, politics will make your decisions for you. Ask the OBs in Idaho.

 

[annatar]

(Am I still allowed to comment regarding the original post?) A very worrying time we live in.

I think that we should be free to say whatever we want without repercussions that violate our basic human rights; for example, you should be able to go around to college campuses and express your opinions and expect to not be murdered. Most forms of speech are protected by the First Amendment, besides true threats, inciting to violence, true discrimination that violates civil rights, etc. That doesn't mean that all protected speech is good, constructive, or truly virtuous, but hey, silly people should be allowed to express their silly opinions.

From a moral standpoint, I don't think anyone's death should be celebrated (with the possible exception of like, Hitler-esque individuals). However, that celebratory speech should be allowed/protected, because it's an opinion that doesn't directly infringe on the rights of others. (I will say there is nuance there that expressing someone *should* die is different, because that leads towards true threats and inciting to violence etc). I won't claim to be the most qualified to speak on this point, nor have I thought about it or researched it as much as others.

So, all of that is to say: I don't think people should be dismissed from their jobs left and right, as has been happening. I'm sure their respective employers came up with "appropriate" reasons that are legally defensible.

I can see that it's different with someone like a physician, who has sworn the Hippocratic Oath to include doing no harm. Hypothetical situation: I would be concerned if I was a critical care patient who agreed with Charlie Kirk, and I found out that my doctor celebrated (and publicized their excitement) at his death, a man I identify with. It certainly would negatively alter my physician-patient relationship. Would my doctor also celebrate my death if they knew that I'm a registered Republican? Is my doctor truly trying to save me, if they wished for the death of someone else similar to me? An extreme case, but certainly one that would play into an evaluation of a physician's freedom of speech, from a patient's perspective.

I guess all that it to say that life and the social climate are particularly complicated right now, and all too frequently so. I wish people could have more compassion for others, I wish that open, goal-oriented discourse was more common. I would love to be called out for saying something wrong, or for people to disagree with me, so I can learn. Idk maybe I'm just rambling. 🙂

 

[doctorendgame]

What a strange perspective to espouse on a medical forum. Last I checked, it was not leftists who were removing vaccine mandates or cutting access to abortion and Medicaid. When you equate the left and right, you ignore the pure fact that one of them is actively eroding this profession, its reputation, and the ability to care for our patients. Is this not your first priority as a physician?

I've seen parents in clinic who are "opting out" of vaccines for their kid. Why don't we opt out of antibiotics as well, and treat meningitis with herbal remedies? It's just so stupid. If you choose to be apolitical, politics will make your decisions for you. Ask the OBs in Idaho.

Although that is quite a heavy-handed, short-sighted generalization, I'll say that the framing is problematic just on a factual, historical basis.

The premise you're assuming is that the job market was a meritocracy and perfectly fair before, and that affirmative action policies were a way to discriminate exclusively against white males, who were most prominently affected by these changes in policy.

The truth is the inverse: due to -isms of various flavors, entire categories of people were overtly excluded from entire industries... it was an era when white male doctors recruited other white males on the basis of shared demographics—far, far from being the meritocracy you are implying. If anything, the meritocracy was created as the movements for equality made this kind of exclusion less socially tolerable and so it needed to become more covert to be effective at resisting minorities of all stripes from entering the profession.

The entire conception of merit is defined to represent the things the reference group already has, and is used to justify one's station once the already rigged system exerts its intended effect. At the same time, it suppresses the reality of historical oppression and exclusion that makes even the aspiration of meeting meritocratic ideals impossible given that the same behaviors are interpreted differently based on identity (aka prejudice/implicit bias). That's why marginalized folks going through this process have this conception of having to be "twice as good [as the reference group]" to be noticed...and why the holistic approach we have now feels like a pittance relative to the redistribution of opportunity that is truly needed.

Look, at the end of the day, I can show you many people who break the law and abuse their power. We are watching it happen all the time, and given that the marginalized are being fired from any role of consequence, you only really have the reference group to blame. Ignoring the two clear cases of such at the highest rungs of society linked via news articles here...to interrogate the crumbs we offer the most vulnerable through an amateur documentary from a channel with 6,000 followers on YouTube is just intellectually lazy. Ditto for articles from resumebuilder.com.

That is a good point. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Truth be told, I'm kind of burnt out on empathy because of some personal issues, so sorry if I come off as apathetic.

 

[polymerization]

That is a good point. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Truth be told, I'm kind of burnt out on empathy because of some personal issues, so sorry if I come off as apathetic.

No need to apologize... we all go through rough times and the discourse makes this race feel even more brutal than it already is. I hope that people finding compassion for you in your low moments can help you find a more charitable interpretation of the narratives of marginalized human beings (with families, their own hopes and dreams, and potential they deserve to pursue every ounce as much as Charlie).

Sometimes I feel like I'm in a Black Mirror episode that blended into a The Good Place episode. Like, I want to shake people by the shoulders and scream "Don't you get it? They want us to fight each other, knowing full well neither of us has any control over anything. They just don't want us to fight them!" ...and just getting deadpan Gen Z stares and silence from everyone.

It's kind of the point, though. It's why they're doing this. People are too exhausted to keep a systemic view if they're worried about making it to tomorrow.

 

[annatar]

Like, I want to shake people by the shoulders and scream "Don't you get it? They want us to fight each other, knowing full well neither of us has any control over anything. They just don't want us to fight them!"

I deleted a whole page of rambling on this exactly from my post, your version is so much more concise!!

 

[polymerization]

I can see that it's different with someone like a physician, who has sworn the Hippocratic Oath to include doing no harm. Hypothetical situation: I would be concerned if I was a critical care patient who agreed with Charlie Kirk, and I found out that my doctor celebrated (and publicized their excitement) at his death, a man I identify with. It certainly would negatively alter my physician-patient relationship. Would my doctor also celebrate my death if they knew that I'm a registered Republican? Is my doctor truly trying to save me, if they wished for the death of someone else similar to me? An extreme case, but certainly one that would play into an evaluation of a physician's freedom of speech, from a patient's perspective.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. It's true that it can feel jarring to realize you are entrusting a totally fallible human being with your life. It has also never been the case in history where you could theoretically google your doctor and stumble upon a gallery of their personal photos, inner musings, or just whatever digital footprint they leave behind online.

I know most of my fellow applicants probably don't know what a dial-up modem sounds like from firsthand experience. They don't know a life without social media that encourage you to publish every waking thought you ever have. (I mean, I'm doing it right now...)

We are just now casually discussing the most recent instances of that data being weaponized, and the way things are going, weaponization is going to become increasingly simple, even automated. All it encourages is silence, which then is justified by the ruling party as consent and even implicit agreement.

If we allow this to happen, applicants are not going to be arguing about insurance and paperwork in 10 years... they will be talking about how to scrape the internet of every morsel of info that might be out there, because AMCAS will use AI to scour the web for irrefutable proof that you once called someone fat in the fifth grade and whoops, can't be a doctor now. It also encourages the nightmare you bring up: knowing your patient could potentially conjure your entire life story and decline your care on the basis of something they read online that might not even be true.

All I ask is that people question who this system favors...because from the applicant's perspective (hell, even the graduate's perspective)... it sure isn't us.

 

[Goro]

Affirmative action has much room for improvement because otherwise, you get hires like these. In fact, companies with DEI programs were explicitly told to stop hiring white men, which ironically makes affirmative action just as racist rather than eliminating it, but that's not a conversation liberals are ready to have; they are so committed to "fighting" racism that they can't fathom the idea that a program they support ends up causing discrimination, speaking from personal experience.

Thanks for asking for clarification rather than outright assuming. Politics is filled with idiots like that.

This has nothing to do with the title of the thread and the OP. If you want to get this thread locked, just by all means, keep at it.